Author
Topic: How much would you pay for Canon 24-70 f/2.8 L IS (Read 12097 times)

I know at this point it is hypothetical but if Canon were to release 24-70mm f/2.8 L IS lens in 2013 or 2014 (which I think they won't), how much would you be willing to pay for it? and what would you give up / sell (if any)?

You bet! .. darned things aint cheap ... with $3500, in India, one can buy a brand new car and still have some money left over to buy a motorcycle. Imagine the price of 200-400 f/4 L IS ... after buying that lens, one can buy a car to use it as a lens case on wheels.

I believe we can all accept that a lens may be heavier with IS in it, that is kind of obvious. Nevertheless it appears to me that Canon has shied away from trying to minimize lens weight to make up for the weight increase due to IS being added. Tamron appears to have managed to achieve this, but then again their lens design is not the same.

What weighs most in a lens is glass, followed by lens barrel material. It will be difficult for Canon to reduce in these areas without seriously compromising lens quality unless they go for a complete overhaul of their lens design, which may lead to a model more similar in weight to the Tamron lens.

Probably only Canon's product designers will be able to supply the information as to which reasons compelled Canon to omit IS in this lens.

I believe we can all accept that a lens may be heavier with IS in it, that is kind of obvious. Nevertheless it appears to me that Canon has shied away from trying to minimize lens weight to make up for the weight increase due to IS being added. Tamron appears to have managed to achieve this, but then again their lens design is not the same.

What weighs most in a lens is glass, followed by lens barrel material. It will be difficult for Canon to reduce in these areas without seriously compromising lens quality unless they go for a complete overhaul of their lens design, which may lead to a model more similar in weight to the Tamron lens.

Probably only Canon's product designers will be able to supply the information as to which reasons compelled Canon to omit IS in this lens.

I agree ... but, (assuming that it meets all your requirements), how much would you be willing to pay for it?

It would be an amazing lens if so. I just spent a weekend using the II constantly - it is amazing. Dare I say worth the current price. I'd pay $2500-3000 for an IS but for the way I use the current II, i don't see the need for IS.

Its an interesting question... For many photographers IS on a standard zoom isn't a feature that would be worth an awful lot, as the extra stabilisation means that you can handhold a steady shot for far longer than your subject is likely to stay still (unless you're a still life or landscape photographer, in which case using a tripod isn't likely to be an issue). Of course this isn't the case when you think about a lens like the 70-200, let alone the supertele lenses, where IS is a huge advantage for stills.

On the other hand, for video, having IS in a standard zoom is still a really sought after feature - you're (mainly) stuck at a shutter speed of 1/50th, and IS is thus really really useful. As someone who does more paid video than stills work I would be prepared to pay extra for a 24-70 IS. But it would have to offer a superior performance/price ratio to the Tamron (which is sharper than the Canon 24-70 mk 1 and costs half the price of the mark ii). Given that the mark ii is now available for under £1700, I'd consider a 24-70is at £2k - but at 2.5x the price of the Tamron it would have to be a spectacularly good lens to justify the cost. I mean for the £1200 difference I could pick up (for example) the Samyang 24+35+85mm f1.4 primes as well.

the 70-200 f/2.8 without IS cost, $1300, the same lens with IS cost $2000. So all the tech can certainly be accommodated at a 'pro IS level' with a $700 up-charge, maybe a touch more if they want to add special coatings of what not to the is lens element.